Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7356 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
14 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-06-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Next Hearing Date
31-03-2016
Assessment Year
1998-1999
Appeal Filed On
18-04-2002
Judgement Text
ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 1 1 BEFORE IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER ITA NO. 1689/M/2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998 -99 THE ACIT, CIRCLE 6(3) VS. M/S. GE COUNTRYWIDE CON SUMER FINANCIAL MUMBAI. SERVICES LI MITED, MAHALAXMI ENGINEERING ESTATE, PLOT NO. 571, LADY JAMSHEDJI FIRST CROSS ROAD, MAHIM, MUMBAI 400 016. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND ITA NO. 1942/M/2002 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1998 -99 GE COUNTRYWIDE CONSUMER FINANCIAL VS. THE A CIT, CIRCLE 6(3) SERVICES LIMITED, MUMBAI. MAHALAXMI ENGINEERING ESTATE, PLOT NO. 571, LADY JAMSHEDJI FIRST CROSS ROAD, MAHIM, MUMBAI 400 016. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR JARWAL, ADV. SHRI GAUTAM SWAROOP, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY: MS. SULEKHA VERMA, CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 31.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17. 06.2016 ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 2 2 O R D E R PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI MUMBAI DA TED 16.1.2002 PASSED IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-VI/SR-3/IT III/00-01 FO R ASSTT. YEAR 1998- 99. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1689 /M/2002 READ AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THE SALE AND LEASE BACK TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. ASIAN ELECTRONICS LTD. AS GENUINE AND IN FURTH ER ALLOWING THE DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,74,11,000/- CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE CIT () IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 1997-98 WHICH H AS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND APPEAL TO ITAT HAS BEEN FILED VIDE AUTHORISATION MEMO NO.J- 24/J-III/IT-112/2001-02 DATED 22.5.2001. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 24,71,034/- OUT OF RS. 30,59,684/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES ON PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE SAID EXPENS ES HAVE BEEN HELD AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AS THE SAME HAVE RESULTED IN ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 3 3 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS FOUR GRO UNDS IN THIS APPEAL BUT AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1 AND 1A THUS SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. REMAINING EFFECTIVE GROUN DS OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS LE GALLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PURCHASE BILLS AND OTHE R RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM, THEREBY DISREGARDING TH E PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 , AND CONSEQUENTLY, CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPREC IATION OF RS. 32,27,474/- ON VEHICLES OWNED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND LEASED OUT DURING THE YEAR. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS LE GALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 57,38,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON STICKY LOANS AND ADVANCES WI THOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO REAL INCOME HAD ACCRUE D TO THE APPELLANT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS LE GALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF 5 0% OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLAN T COMPANY, THEREBY CAUSING A GRIEVANCE OF RS. 12,07,8 27/- TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY. 5. THE APPELLANT COMPANY CRAVES LEAVE T O ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND / OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL HEREIN AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMENTS DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING. 4. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE THE LD. CIT (DR) POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE BY T HE ORDER OF THE ITAT ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 4 4 DELHI C BENCH DATED 21.6.2013 PASSED IN ITA NO. 347 6/D/2007 AND 3192/D/2007 WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE AS GROUND NO. 2 HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME DENOVO IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF ICDS LTD. VS. CIT 350 ITR 257 (SC). THE LD. CIT(DR) FURTHER POINT ED OUT THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIB UNAL DATED 21.6.2013 ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HONBLE HIGH CO URT OF DELHI BY ORDER DATED 24.2.2014 PASSED IN ITA NO. 46/2014 AND 47/20 14. 5. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA 17 AT PAGE 8 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR ASTT. YE AR 1997-98. HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(DR) THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ORDER THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSTT. YEAR 200 1-02 DATED 21.6.2013 (SUPRA) ON THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT. FROM OPERATIVE PART OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IT I S AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS LEFT UPON THE QUESTION TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS TO WHETHER THE DECISION IN ICDS LTD. (SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE OR NOT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 5 5 SIMILAR CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE FO R ASSTT. YEAR 1998-99 IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDIC ATION AFTER ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESEE. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 IS LD. CIT(DR) CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,71,034/- OUT OF RS. 30,59,684/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES ON PURCHASE OF COMPUTER SOFTWARE WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THAT THE SAID EXPENSES HAVE BEEN HELD AS CAPITAL EXPENDI TURE AS THE SAME HAVE RESULTED IN ENDURING BENEFIT TO THE ASSESEE. 7. LD. AR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIRST APPELLAT E ORDER AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF 29 AND 30 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIL ED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON VARIOUS ITEMS OF THESE SOFTWAR E OF THE VALUE OF RS. 30,59,684/- INCLUDING RS. 9,05,672/- WHICH WAS A DE FERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE WRITTEN OFF IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN ASSTT. YEAR 1998-99. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND RATIO OF THE DECISION OF ITAT AHME DABAD BENCH A IN THE CASE OF LUBI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 122/AHD/1992 ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 6 6 AND ITA NO. 163/AHD/1992 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1988-89 W HERE THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT GIVEN BY HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF ALEMBIC CHEMICALS WORKS LTD. 177 ITR 377 ALLOWED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PROGRAMME WAS ALL OWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 8. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF OUR SUBMISSIONS FROM OPERATIVE PARA 29 AND 30 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WE NOTE THAT TH E CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESEE AFTER CONSIDERING ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND BY FOLLOWING RATIO OF THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABA D IN THE CASE OF LUBI ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA). THE CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT OUT OF RS. 9,05,672/- AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5,88,650/- HAS ALRE ADY BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESEE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN 1997-98. THER EFORE BALANCE HAS BEEN CLAIMED AS DEFERRED REVENUE EXPENDITURE. THERE FORE TOTAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E . ASSTT. YEAR 1988-89 IS OF RS. 24,71,034/- WHICH IS ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS THE EXPENDITURE IN PURCHASE OF SOFTWARE PROGRAMME HAS T O BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY AMBIG UITY, PERVERSITY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGN ED ORDER AND THEREFORE WE UPHOLD THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY GROUND N O. 2 BEING DEVOID OF MERITS IS ALSO DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 7 7 ASSESSEES APPEAL ITA NO. 1942/M/2002 9. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESEE THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS LEGALLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PURCH ASE DETAILS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A OF IT RULES 1962 AND CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEP RECIATION OF RS. 32,27,474/- ON THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY AND LEASED OUT DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT TH AT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) SHOUL D HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND CONSIDERED WHICH PROPERLY EXPLAINS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO CLAIM OF THE DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND LEASED OUT DURING THE PERIOD. 10. THE LD. CIT(DR) STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER SHE COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WAS TO BE ADMITTED AND CONSID ERED FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION OF THIS GROUND. IN ALL FAIRNESS SHE AGR EED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE ISSUE CONTAINED IN GROUND NO . 2 OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIR ECTION TO ADMIT AND CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSES EE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIE NT CAUSE FROM FILING ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 8 8 THE SAME BEFORE THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. IN V IEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES OWNED BY THE ASSESEE COMPANY AND LEASED OU T DURING THE YEAR IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND CON SIDERED AS PER RELEVANT RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT BEING PREJUDICE FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. APROPOS GROUND NO. 3 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL DATED 15.9.2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 4069/D/2011 AND 4145/D/ 2011 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY WHEREIN THE A PPEALS OF THE REVENUE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE ISSUE OF INTERES T ON STICKY LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT O N THE VERY SIMILAR ISSUE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 3198/DEL/04 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HOLDING THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VASISTH CHAY VYAP AR LTD. (2011) 330 ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 9 9 ITR 440 (DEL). REPLYING TO THE ABOVE THE LD. CIT(DR ) SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOT COVERED BY THE ORDER THE TRIBUNAL AND HONBLE HIGH COURT BECAUSE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 21 .6.2013 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2001-02 PAGE 10 THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF UCO BANK VS. CIT 237 ITR 889 WHICH HAS BEEN UPHE LD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT BY ORDER DATED 24.2.2014. 12. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2014 (SUPRA) HONBLE H IGH COURT HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDINGS ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROU ND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINING TO INTEREST ON STICKY LOANS AND ADVANCES AND THE SAME WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE T RIBUNAL FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI BY ORDER DATED 29.1.2016 (SUPRA). 13. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL S UBMISSIONS WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE ON INTEREST O N STICKY LOANS HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 AND ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 29.1.2016 (SUPRA) WH EREIN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED ON BOTH THE COUNTS I.E. DELAY OF 365 DAYS IN ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 10 10 FILING THE APPEAL AS WELL AS ON MERITS. THE LD. CIT (DR) COULD NOT SHOW US ANY CONTRARY DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT ON T HIS ISSUE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH CO URT DATED 29.1.2016 FOR ASSTT. YEAR 1999-2000 WE HOLD THAT GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESEE IS COVERED ON ALL FOUR CORNERS BY THIS ORDER WE DECIDE THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 14. GROUND NO. 4 APROPOS GROUND NO. 4 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WELL AS THE CIT(A) H AS LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATED DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF FOR EIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREBY CAUSIN G A GRIEVANCE OF RS. 12,05,827/- TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTE D OUT THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) COULD NOT CONTROVERT THIS FACT T HAT THE EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS NOT INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT ESTABLISHING ANY ALLEGATION ES TIMATED DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE LD. COU NSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT ENTIRE FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WAS INCURRE D FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN TOTO. ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 11 11 15. THE LD. CIT(DR) DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PARAS 35 TO 37.1 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND CONTENDED THAT IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT ONLY A LIST OF PERSONS UNDERTAKING FOREIGN TRAVELLING HAS BEEN GI VEN WITHOUT MENTIONING DATES, PLACE OF VISITS AND AMOUNTS IN RE SPECT OF EACH SUCH VISIT ALONG WITH THE EXPLAINING THE BUSINESS PURPOS E FOR SUCH VISITS. THE LD. CIT(DR) VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE AO SPEC IFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS BUT THE ASSESS EE INSPITE OF REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS OVER A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SAME. LD. CIT(DR) F URTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS SITUATION THE AO WAS QUITE CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT IT IS NOT ESTIMATED AS TO WHETHER ALL SUCH VISITS WERE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE MAY RE MITTED DISALLOWANCE OF 50% OF CLAIMED EXPENDITURE. LD. CIT (DR) FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO PROVIDED REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FILED INCOMPLETE DETAILS VIDE SUBMISSIONS AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THE WHOLE EXPENDI TURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL WAS EXPENDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. ON CAREFULLY CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMIS SION WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND SUMMARY OF T HE FOREIGN TRAVEL ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 12 12 EXPENSES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 141 TO 144 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHEREIN PARTICULARS OF FOREIG N TRAVELING, AMOUNT EXPENDED, PURPOSE OF VISIT, NAME OF THE PERSON TRAV ELLED THEIR DESIGNATION HAS BEEN GIVEN AND GRAND TOTAL OF FOREI GN TRAVEL EXPENSE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RS. 24,15,655/-. HOWEVER WE MAY P OINT OUT THAT THESE DETAILS OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES FILED BEFO RE THE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE AO. THEREFORE THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION THAT HE SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHAL L PROPERLY EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE RE GARDING CLAIM OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE A O SHALL ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE FROM THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT AND FI RST APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WE LL AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (L.P. SAHU) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER ITA NOS. 1689/MUM/2002, 1942/MUM/2002 13 13 DATED JUNE, 2016 VEENA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT REGISTRAR, ITAT
Mehul